43D drivers want old route back

CEBU, Philippines - For cutting their respective routes without giving prior notice, a drivers’ group is asking Judge Douglas Marigomen of Regional Trial Court Branch 5 to issue a writ of preliminary injunction against the Cebu City government and the City Traffic Operations Management.

In their two-page position paper, plaintiffs Eric Eminido and others through their counsel Gregorio Escasinas asked the court to stop the implementation of the ordinance saying it violates their rights.

“The questioned ordinance violates their Constitutional Bill of Rights which states no person shall be deprived of their life, liberty or property without due process of law. Liberty is the freedom of the person to choose their means of livelihood and without giving them notice their routes were cut,” the position paper read.

Eminido and others from Cebu South Transport Operators and Drivers Association (Cestoda filed the civil case after the city government stopped them from entering F. Llamas and Sabellano streets.

Eminido, Cestoda spokesman, earlier said the City Ordinance 1663 prohibits jeepney drivers plying route number 43D from entering F. Llamas and Sabellano streets in violation of their franchise route.

He said it is not only the drivers and the operators who will be affected by the said ordinance but the commuters as well.He added that the city government cannot claim that traffic is the reason for the passage of the said ordinance because traffic is not heavy on F. Llamas and Sabellano streets.

The 43D jeepneys ply the Minglanilla-Basak route via Mohon-Sabellano and F. Llamas streets and vice-versa. With the said ordinance of the City of Cebu, the plaintiffs said they were compelled to violate the law.

The respondents namely; the City of Cebu represented by Mayor Michael Rama, CITOM and Atty. Rafael Christopher Yap, are set to file their position paper before the court.

Last year, the court denied the plea of the plaintiffs seeking for the issuance of a temporary restraining order against the respondents citing lack of cause of action.

However, the plaintiffs filed a motion for reconsideration saying that they have “a clear and legal right to explore their respective route in accordance with their franchise”.

The plaintiffs added that the respondents committed grave abuse of discretion in arresting them as they ply their routes while allowing tricycles without the necessary permit from the government to operate to use the same roads.

They added they raised the matter before the Office of the Land Transportation and the respondents were advised against arresting the plaintiffs.

“Not minding this advice, the respondents proceeded to effect the arrest of the herein petitioners arguing that the area is so congested that there is a need to limit plaintiffs’ operation,” they said.

The drivers added they called the attention of the respondents not to allow tricycles to enter the said area but the latter did not act on their request.

In its answer, the respondents asked for the denial of the motion for reconsideration filed by the petitioners for lack of merit.

“The plaintiffs’ motion for reconsideration, basically, is a reiteration of plaintiffs’ position in their application for issuance of TRO, which the court heard and properly denied,” the respondents said.—/BRP (FREEMAN)